s e a n v i l l e Sean Uyehara

I am Sean Uyehara. This is Seanville

[seanville]

The Royal Road insistently tests the tenuous ties between memory and identity.

I wrote about Jenni’s Olson’s beautiful film The Royal Road

[seanville]

Laura Poitras, CITIZENFOUR and You

Poitras speaks on her powderkeg CITIZENFOUR and the tension between liberty and security, law and secrecy.

I interviewed Laura Poitras awhile back.

[seanville]

Beth Lisick and I made a video. Should have added here awhile back...

[seanville]

A film festival programmer on cities, disaster films and why it’s OK to love Basic Instinct.

[seanville]

I wrote this for Jonn Herschend and Art Practical.

[seanville]

Booby Trap Schools Now!

It is difficult to deny the rhetorical force and sheer rightheadedness of statements made by NRA spokesman Wayne LaPierre on December 21, 2012. He argued that the demands of our violent, video game loving and all around soft culture to make elementary schools "gun-free" zones has made those schools safe havens for the criminally insane.

While he suggests that we install armed policeman at every school, we remain skeptical that this truly represents "all that we can do" to protect our most valuable resource, our children.

Therefore, we propose to booby trap every school in the United States. 

Booby traps naturally deter people from going to a place where they aren't wanted, because you can die and stuff. We can hear you thinking (and we agree), "Land mines could do the trick." But, land mines have the unfortunate downside of periodically killing innocent people and they are difficult to de-install. Also, we keep forgetting where they all are.

You may also ask, "Do emotionally distressed people make rational decisions about their own safety?" And, we answer your question with a question of our own, "Isn't there only one way to find out for sure?"

We think crowd funding this important project is the best and most realistic way forward, since the federal government is too busy allocating money to purchase arms to protect people like the president. Why is he safe, while everyone else without an armed guard is less safe? Think about it. And, while you're thinking about it, don't think about any politician who's been assassinated, because then you'll be confused. Instead, just keep thinking about how your child doesn't have an armed guard and the president does. Some of our state governments think it's more important to fund education, including many teachers who haven't undergone the weapons training that we think necessary, than it is to fund school safety. So, we are here to tell you that for the cost of a latté you can help to install dangerous and innovative traps in your child's school! Or, are you just a selfish jerk who doesn't care about kids?

Back to booby traps: you may be wondering, "Is my child actually more safe if we surround him or her with weapons?" Even though most studies would say no, that they are in fact less safe, we want to point out that facts are often biased towards reality.  

Clearly, having a weapon makes you safer. It's common sense. Don't look up in a study what is so obviously true on the face of it. If someone tells you differently, argue incoherently about a hostile government takeover of society. Let's band together and give the police more guns and create elaborate and frightening protections in our schools. Nothing says "learning" like having a guy with a handgun outside the door. 

Additionally, booby traps can serve as a terrific educational opportunity for kids. What's cooler than learning how to carve a punji stick, making a trap door or rigging trip wires?

Finally, if this doesn't quite work out to curb violence in our societies, we will extend this booby trapping activity to a number of other contexts such as hospitals, post offices, malls, work places, etc., because the problem with our culture is not that it's too violent, it's that there are too many places that are safe zones for bad guys. We need to make sure that no place is safe.

Send checks to the NRA at it:

National Rifle Association of America

School Shield Projects

11250 Waples Mill Road Fairfax, VA 22030

[seanville]

Fictitious business name

It was cool that Mitt Romney decided to include Neil Armstrong in his nomination acceptance speech last night at the Republican National Convention. Armstrong was the first human being to walk on the moon and for that symbolizes a success of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Armstrong died on the 25th of August just a few days prior and Romney's people probably didn't see any political angle to exploiting his death. Ha. Of course, that's just politics (necromantics), so no biggie there.

But, apart from the truly terrible phraseology Romney chose in presenting his legacy – “The soles of Neil Armstrong’s boots made permanent impressions on our souls.” Holy shite. Really? (reminded me of "There's a Hidden Valley Ranch party in MY mouth!)  -- and, the conflation of Armstrong and fellow astronaut Buzz Aldrin,

whose boot impression is the one we all know and made an impression on our, umm, souls, focusing on that event is a pretty unfortunate one. That’s because Romney’s platform vociferously disavows the historical impact and potential worth of governmental programs to spur private industry or move the economy forward.

The Apollo program, which brought the first human beings to the moon, was one of the most expensive research oriented governmental programs in history.  The economic stimulus (for lack of a better term) provided for what would equal hundreds of billions of dollars when accounting for inflation.

Not surprisingly, throughout the years there have been many who criticized the space program as a waste of resources. The idea that someone could walk on the moon and that that could be in some way meaningful was perceived many as ludicrous. As Gil Scott-Heron so eloquently said, “I can’t pay no doctor bill, but whitey’s on the moon. Ten years from now I’ll be paying still, while Whitey’s on the moon.”

On the occasion of the closing of the space program, many pundits and economists debated whether the space program had an overall negative or positive effect on the economy.

But, what isn’t debated is whether private sector business received a net gain from the technical and scientific innovations of the program. They did. That is to say, many entrepreneurs benefitted greatly from the investment the government made into the infrastructure and research base of science and technology that the space program presented.

In this way, many businesses that appear to us as stand alone ventures, completely self-reliant and pioneering are like Neil Armstrong himself, an individual trailblazer whose status as a pinnacle obscures the massive edifice that necessarily supports his individual glory. Was Neil Armstrong a unique individual, a maverick even? Probably. Could he have made it alone? Of course not. This statement isn’t intended to take anything away from Armstrong’s achievements. He was a pilot, an astronaut and an aerospace engineer.  By all accounts an amazing person. But, he worked in a system and his success would not have been possible without the decision of the US government to sink billions of dollars into an industry purely for the purpose of innovation.

Just as a digression: It is very rare for a person to literally as Romney put it, “build a business with their own hands.” In fact, for my own part trying to imagine it – a person building a business with their hands -- is difficult. A business is a somewhat abstract entity. It’s based on the monetization of products, labor or an idea. People can make products with their hands. But, a business requires the process of getting those products into a marketplace. And, much of that process relies on our shared infrastructures -- of communication, transportation, power and money among other things. Those infrastructures have been built up in common. And, that doesn’t account for the natural resources of land, water, air, metals, timber or whatever else might be needed to create this fictitious business. Many people are great at building businesses. It’s a terrific skill that I do not mean to underplay. But, it is by its nature a social exercise.  To deny that deliberately misleads.

Later in his speech Romney made fun of Obama for wanting to “slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet.” It seems absurd of course to imagine a man standing in front of the ocean and quelling it with nothing more than his sheer will. And, I laugh too when I think of an Obama-hippie meditating of the planet healing. But, I wish that either Romney or Obama, someone! would take on a seemingly impossible, yet vital task. And, while some might debate whether rising sea levels are in part a man made problem (they are, knucklehead), it would be difficult to argue that rising sea levels aren’t an important problem facing humankind.

Could a literal turning of the tides be our next president’s Apollo program?

In addition to the many private sector business and scientific innovations the space program brought to the nation and world, it also helped to galvanize the public and spark the imaginations of our nation as a whole. Isn’t that what Romney means when he says (lamely) says that Armstrong’s sole impression is on our souls? We need someone to stand up and say, “Fuck it. Let’s do the impossible!” Let’s stop global climate change. Let’s turn back the oceans. Let’s create plastic eating bacteria. Let’s cure cancer with nanotechnology. Let’s create an economic system that is based on equality. Let’s make sure that every person who gets sick can get the attention they need to get well. They government will commit itself to this project and we are doing it in five years! 

Sounds absurd doesn’t it? Like a guy walking on the fucking moon. (Or a grown man speaking condescendingly to an imaginary president in an empty chair in front of thousands of people.)

[seanville]

This will help you to make decisions about how to protect your face.

[seanville]

Curly? Fry

Only the minority of these ostensible curly fries would qualify as "curly." The rest are just bent or arcing. I took photographs of french fries today.

Just to show that I am not above being wrong, I open with something that one could say, I guess, is curly. But, it's really mostly straight-ish, and then has a little pig's tail. What's more curly than a pig's tail you say. I say, fuck, I dunno.

By far, most of the fries that come in a batch of curly fries look like this. Half moons. Curly? Hell, no! I said, curly fries not muthafuckin half-moon fries, beyotch! This style makes up 63.2% of most curly fry orders.

Also a common site (checking in at 23.1%) , but still technically not curly. If you are on a date, you may (prob not tho) get a laugh by wearing it as a bull ring in your nose. BUT, no matter what, don't eat it after your little "joke." Trust me on this.

I know what you're thinking -- a curly fry! Since when are we calling a ring "curly?" One curl is not "curly." The only good thing to say about the "O" is that it is the least common type of fry found in curly fries, a mere 2.39%. 

I will agree that based on technicality this constitutes a "curl." Two loops. If you looked at this and said, "It curled," I wouldn't need to donkey punch you in the kidneys. But, is it "curly?" This two looped ring is rare -- 3.0%. That's a good thing, becuase it is the most controversial of all the curly fries. And, who likes controversy?

Let's take a break to acknowledge that detritus is inevitable in the production of potato-based foods. This kind of weirdness litters the bottom of all curly fry batches. It's cool. I know you're not trying to hold up this cartographer's nightmare while saying, "Look how curly it is!" No harm done here.

This is what is meant by curly fry. Come on guys, can't we get the percentages up for actual curliness? Making up 12.79% of curly fries, that this actually curly thing is as rare as it is is practically criminal. And, when curly fries are outlawed, only outlaws will eat curly fries. See what I mean? Me neither. 

This last curly fry made me weep and gives me hope for the future.

[seanville]

Black Sabbath Paranoid x 6

[thedavidoreilly]

I don’t usually post stuff I didn’t make, but I really wanted to share this as I couldn’t find it on youtube. I saw this film years ago and always remembered this bizarre scene. Please enjoy before youtube deletes it.

[seanville]

Wherein I speak nervously with Miranda July

(I am moving this over from my former erstwhile "blog" -- it's from August, 2011)

Is it normal for an interview to be introduced by apology or confession? Not sure, but I can say that I might not have been the best person to interview Miranda July. It’s best if the interviewer is either as smart as the interviewee or just stands out of the way. I tried to be the former, but that didn’t work out. And, then it was too late to get out of the way of myself.

The whole interview-situation perhaps didn’t start off perfectly as on arrival I informed the publicist that I’m not a professional journalist. The look I received advised me not to say that again -- ever. Instead, I was told you have a one on one interview. I was asked to make sure I eat one of the amazing cookies in the interviewing-room, because they are delicious, and expensive.

Indeed, the interview was one on one. It took place in one of those corporate meeting spaces in the nether regions of a hotel. This one was oddly opulent while still managing utter dehumanization. It looked like the room at the end of 2001 and reprised in 2010, “Something wonderful is going to happen.”

As I went in, I went straight to the cookies. I tried to make everything seem regular. I’m just here to have a conversation with you. You don’t know if I am a journalist or not, and I am not saying anyhow. I sat down with an extremely crumbly, greased peanut-butter cookie. It was good. When I sat down I realized I had no plate...or a napkin. It was way too late to get back up and travel the seven feet to the table for such items. The interview had begun. I have crumbs on my face and hands…

Well, it hadn’t exactly begun, I asked July if it was OK for me to ask her about a conversation she attempted to have with Christine Vachon at the San Francisco International Film Festival. It took place during the Q+A portion of the State of Cinema Address. She struggled to remember. What was it about again? I am not sure, I wasn’t there. I just heard about it. OK, I can try to remember. Let’s see. Oh God, I was thinking. This doesn’t seem very productive. Is this a good first interview question: you know that conversation about that thing that I am not certain about where I wasn’t there?

Well, let’s just come back to that later, maybe.

Sounds good.

Most people I know have an opinion about Miranda July. And, just about everyone I know who’s interacted with her has a story. She seems to be one of those people that brings out the most nervous behavior. A friend of mine doesn’t know July but has “met” her several times each meeting baffling. Baffling because the occasions seem to have turned my pal into a social miscreant.

There’s a way about July. If she wants, she can let you fall into yourself, trip over your words and sink more and more deeply in an abyss, ok, just a puddle, of awkward. She’s canny and observant, and you can tell that she isn’t going to give you anything that she wants to keep back. Still, on this occasion, she was extremely generous, going out of her way to make my questions seem valid. As I asked around ideas, and wondered if any of it makes sense, she listened and managed to bring things back to relevance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc57X0j_UwM

SU: You often describe The Future as a horror film. But, it doesn’t necessarily read as horrific only.

MJ: It’s really that -- to me, it is like a horror film. I don’t think people will see it that way. And, it’s not a description of the whole movie, but the story line of the character that I play [Sophie]. For someone like me who is constantly making things and is defined by my creativity, work and ability to make things, the idea of not being able to create, of becoming paralyzed, and instead of responding to that in the ways that I do -- because that happens all the time --, but instead by responding by fleeing my life, my soul and my love and to go and exist in a sphere where none of that is demanded of me, where I could be passive, that storyline is like a horror movie to me in that it’s enjoyable to watch. It’s more like a fear-fantasy. But, that’s only going to be true for people who can relate directly to that idea, and that’s only going to be true for a certain segment of the audience.

SU: Still, a good deal of your work expresses that dual nature to darkness. It describes a darkness that is essentially attractive. It’s worrisome because the darkness can suck you in and maybe you want it to do that. Would you agree that that’s one of the primary occupations of your work overall -- in film, writing and performance?

MJ: Definitely, and in life itself too.

I also think that in the film, unlike in a cautionary tale, the darkness isn’t actually truly bad. There’s a part of me that almost admires Sophie for going so far with her wrong turn. I don’t think you can mess up so badly that you don’t ultimately have to do what you were put here to do. So, this is just a particular very long, difficult path to – in this case – make the dance, which she does eventually do.

In my own life, my path has not been totally straight; I’ve made wrong turns. And I am interested in why we do that. It is lifelike. So that’s appealing to me.

SU: You want people to embrace “the detour” even if it’s not cosmically correct?

MJ: Yes, even if it feels profoundly wrong.

SU: On the other hand, the character of Jason does things in the film that I suppose one could say are essentially good or uncorrupted, but the resulting path turns out to be equally dark. It’s not that his decision to listen to himself saves him.

MJ: Yes, that doesn’t protect you.

And, at some point he changes his path. He must stop time. He was going with the flow, and then he literally cannot let the next moment happen. That’s part of it. It’s easy to do until it’s not anymore. And, you still have to go on. For Jason, he can’t just let the world continue passively. No, you have to start it. You must engage with life and start it again.

SU: I have a theory that Paw-Paw is Schrödinger’s cat.

MJ: No, not really. It might try to work that into the mix down at some point (laughs). It sounds OK, but no.

SU: In the recent New York Times Magazine article about you, the author describes your work in terms of “surrealism.” But, in most places I have seen you refer to unusual elements as “unreal.” Do you think about your work in terms of the surreal – as coming from the unconscious – or is it a different kind of unreality that you are working with or portraying?

MJ: I think that I am just trying to be very accurate. When I am writing a short story I am always looking for that perfect metaphor. That thing that really feels like the feeling. That process isn’t so different in writing than it is in film.  When Jason stops time, it’s not that different except that in film it’s not “like” he stopped time. You can just show it.

It’s hard to know what to call these things. They need a name, but surrealism, well surrealism and magical realism, both have histories and certain people that are attached to them and that’s not where I am coming from. I’d hate to put myself in this box – it’s usually other people who do this to me – but, when people reference Charlie Kauffman’s movies, for instance, maybe people call them surreal or magical realist. But, I think his work is also trying to get at a specific feeling in the service of a story.  It’s not all that interested in how weird it can get.

SU: One of the particularly remarkable aspects of your work is in the tendency to focus on specific details of intensely disparate elements and the construction of a kind of matrix where those elements are held in suspension. In The Future for instance, there’s the cat, the shirt, the moon, the penny saver guy, the tree service, backyard burial – all of these things that are not obviously related initially. Likewise, the characters seem quite individuated, almost isolated, and yet, they relate to each other across a divide. Is that a way that you see the world, in general?

MJ: I suppose that’s always been one of my favorite ideas. In that New York Times article you mentioned, I talk about a correspondence I had with a man in prison, and then I wrote a play based on that correspondence. And, just the fact that a 38-year old man who I never actually met, who I became very close to, and was so different from me, a 16-year Berkeley prep school kid – that we both existed in the world and there was no obvious connection, but what we made, and that it was a very awkward connection, it wasn’t always functional… If I look through almost everything I have ever made, that’s always been appealing to me. There’s something just so poignant of “life-y” about that. Or it somehow gets at something important that we have here.

SU: The web-based project that you made with Harrell Fletcher and is on display at SFMOMA currently, “Learning to Love You More” also operates under a similar guise. You ask participants who engage with the piece to look at specific elements from their own lives, like take a flash photo of the underneath of their bed or to lay out and describe an outfit that is important to the participant. But within those specifics there’s a kind of universality that emerges.

MJ: All those activities on the website are things that I would do or Harrell would do on our own. But, one of the problems of being an artist is that you start spiraling around yourself. Your whole job is just to have ideas and think they are interesting. Here, you have the idea, but then you get to be interested in not what you would do, but what everyone else would do. So, my only job was to have the idea. And, most of them I haven’t done. In some cases, you get to see hundreds of examples of them played out. And, suddenly the whole thing of being unique because of having a unique idea is obliterated, and authorship just goes away. And, there’s something that for me gets past one of the stickier parts of being an artist, while it somehow still manages to be “my work” in an odd way. That’s one aspect to it, and there also is this element of universality. But, I’m always looking for the detail, so I tend to not be as attracted to “Oh look, everyone’s doing this.” I am usually looking for “the One.”

SU: Is it comforting that within something that’s so broadly encompassing that everyone has this sort of difference?

MJ: Yeah. And, that we have that in common too. That’s somehow comforting.

SU: Something that I have noticed when presenting films by a female director is that audiences, in my experience at least, are much more apt to assume that the film is autobiographical, semi-autobiographical or at least an expression of an essential self than if the film had been directed by a man. Would you say that’s a fair thing to say in general -- that audiences feel that they know you because of your films?

MJ: Well, yes. And, try being in your films too (laughs). No one even pauses for a second when they assume it’s you.

I understand that. I think about it when I watch films. And, even with a male director, with someone like Woody Allen, it’s hard not to believe that that’s him. But, he usually says it’s not.

This perhaps seems obvious, but I say, and people who know me realize that the character up there is not me. But, the whole movie and all the characters together is so me. When Me and You and Everyone We Know was made, no one knew who I was, so people assumed I must be that character, Christine, and she’s so sweet and everything. But, my friends know that I am equally the pervert guy who is putting the signs in the windows. And, there was just no way to prove that to the world.

(And, how else do you make a world unless these things in it are in you?)

Still, I don’t struggle to get into character. I am familiar with the people I play. But, in the case of The Future, I pretty much put only things into Sophie that I am uncomfortable with or ashamed of even. So, thank god that’s not me.

[seanville]

Snail Story Produces More Questions Than it Answers

Check out this video report:

Giant African Snails in Florida

It seems incomplete, right? Here's some follow up that would be appreciated:

1) Huge Snails?

Not the biggest thing, but damn there are some crazy massive snails out there. Maybe just a little more info?

2) Why is Florida so fucked up?

It seems that every time Florida is in the news it's because something totally effed is happening there. From Scientologists running Clearwater to George Zimmerman and "stand your ground," Tiger Woods, hanging chads, snortable bath salts and some place called Miami -- seriously, why?

3) Bluetooth?

It was weird that the snail expert was wearing his blue tooth thing in his ear during his interview. I mean, it's socially bizarre to wear one of those things in basically every life situation unless you are driving or are at work welding or some shit, right? 

And, then the dude who is doing the snail sacrifice rituals is also wearing the bluetooth thing! Why didn't the reporter say -- "Hey, you might want to take that weird ass thing out of your ear? This will be on television." So confusing. Chalk it up to more Floridian fuck-ed-ness?

4) Snail death?

Which brings me to another remaining mystery. They are sacrificing giant snails as a religious practice? That's what they are doing right? Killing snails as a form of religion. Or is it? What? 

5) Zoning Laws?

"This shrine may give a clue to how the snails got here." That's a shrine? A bunch of stalagmites and a bucket of sticks? What the hell is happening in Florida, people?  Why isn't more information about ritual snail killing in the report? "By the way, what the fuck is that super moldy dank thing leaning against your house? And, why are you cultivating snails in your backyard to kill them?"

This reminds me of talking to friends who don't ask questions when someone gives them good information. For example, when someone says to me, "Fred told me he was in a threesome last night."

Then, I say, "Woah, with who?"

"I dunno."

"What do you mean you don't know?"

"I didn't ask."

"What? How could you not ask?... Anyway, how'd it all come about?"

"Not sure."

"What??!!?"

"I didn't ask him. He just told me he was in a threesome."

"He said, 'I was in a threesome,' and you said, 'OK, that's cool.' And then, that's it?"

"Yeah."

"That's not a story. That's just a fact. All the stuff we don't know is the story part knucklehead."

That's what this story is like -- I mean, how the hell do these snails give you meningitis? There have been over 30,000 of them caught so far? THIRTY THOUSAND 7-inch long snails? That seems like a lot of fucking huge snails. Are they all over the roads and stuff? Oh yeah, before I forget and just by the way, there's a guy doing ritual snail killings in his backyard next to a kiddie pool full of a bunch of tiny monsters. Why?

6) A pattern of massive molluscan creatures?

It may have escaped your notice -- reporter ends the story by saying, "The last time there was a giant snail outbreak in Miami it took authorities almost a decade to get rid of them." Umm, there has been more than one giant snail outbreak in Miami? Seems important. Like, more than just a throw away line at the end of the story. "Here we go again, people. Giant meningitis snails everywhere." What happened that time? Sigh.

Fucking Florida. 

[seanville]

Michael Jackson makes case to buy Joseph Merrick's remains

I was raised a Jehovah’s Witness. Our religion is as it is termed. We are witness to a personal God, and we refer to our personal God in a specific way, by his name – Jehovah. When I was small my father took me door to door with my family to spread Jehovah’s power, deeds and prophecies. It satisfied me to be Jehovah’s conduit. God spoke through me, and I often miss that feeling now. These days, from time to time, I disguise myself and hand out copies of The Watchtower in cities I am visiting. I hate hiding my identity, but it’s necessary if I am to spread Jehovah’s word. I don a fake name – Tito Jackson. No one knows who I am.

There is a power in names – when I say “Jehovah” it rings like an incantation that makes His glory known.

My own name is different. It is buried in an identity I can’t sustain. Today, “Michael Jackson” isn’t so much a name as a vessel for others to fill. This has been the case for awhile now, and over the years, singing became my way to unearth my hidden self. My voice is a summons.

I find it excruciating that JM never truly knew his name. He was the Elephant Man.  He didn’t grow into the person he was meant to be at birth. Instead, his identity was subsumed by his appearance, and his physique became a reflective surface onto which society projected their longings, fears and desires. Just like my body has become.

I had no childhood. Almost since I can remember, I have been a spectacle. I can’t go anywhere without being ogled. People want to handle me. The idea of privacy is foreign to me, and can only be attained at a place like my ranch. I have so many questions of Joseph Merrick, JM.

I was told recently that love is something that ultimately is specific. A general love of things isn’t really love.  That’s a nice feeling, but its closer to contentment. It is direct, singular and concentrated adoration that makes love what it is. Everyone loves, but its rare that one is able to express what makes their singular -- their specific -- love, often even to themselves. Did Joseph love?

[seanville]

some things that confused me recently

My daughter is rad. She often will say things to me that are so befuddling that they shake me into the realization that I am alive. She may be a living Dada exhibit. 

Recently, as we were walking outside, she asked me, "What's short for two thousand sixty-eight?"

I replied, "What do you mean?"

"What's short for it?"

"You mean how do you say it shorter? How do you abbreviate it?"

"Yeah."

"I dunno. Do you know?"

"No."

"Why are you asking?"

"I was just wondering."

"Why that number?"

"I just was thinking about two thousand sixty-eight."

Later that day, we were on the couch reading and she asked me, "Dad, what's "h" plus "f?"

"Huh? H plus F?"

"Yeah."

"I don't know what that means." Then she farted on me, which was a bummer but sort of made sense too.

Sometimes it's not her imagination that is confusing. We were at the store and she said, "Nut milk? Dad, what's nut milk?" And, I thought this is one of those weird Asta things.

"Did you say, 'Nut milk?'"

"Yeah, what's nut milk?"

"I have no idea of course. I don't think there is anything called nut milk. What?"

"Have you ever considered making your own nut milk?"

"Asta what are you talking about?"

She points, "Dad, it's right there. Nut milk." I look directly in front of me and see this:

So, I need to keep on my toes.

[thedavidoreilly]

[seanville]

Visit Original Link

One of the saddest moments of my life featured Tom Petty singing, “I won’t back down” during the “Tribute to Heroes” show following 9/11. It was heartbreaking to hear a countercultural anthem sung as a call to war. The attack was devastating (obviously). And, following it, one could see that the US was headed for an assault even though it was not clear how such an assault would help.  And, worse, there was (an unfortunately correct) feeling that war was now going to be perpetual.

The other performance that struck me in that show, a truly strange one overall, was Neil Young’s rendition of “Imagine.” I wanted so badly to make that sentiment the one that would stick, but you didn’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind was blowing. (That’s paraphrasing Dylan, and despite what it appears, I am not 75 years old.)

Anyhow, this whole won’t back down idea of Petty’s began as one of underdogs attempting to effect change and last through the battering of bureaucracy, big government and conservative values. The young rebel is going to be the person he would most like to know. But, in a horrible twist of an attack the previously inconceivable – the world trade center as underdog – was articulated. It’s perfectly understandable, but hawkish forces that were at the ready rushed into the fissure produced by the crisis. And, the whole thing got muddled. We all knew that there were forces that wanted a more bellicose posture -- made obvious by Desert Storm. And, so you could see permanent war on the horizon following 9/11, and it was fucking terrible and sad. Then we get: American values are under attack. And, once that’s accepted, it the shortest step to the “time to stand your ground” siege mentality.

Co-opting the power of rebellion is a nifty trick. It’s hyper-masculine. It appears brave. But, this whole stand your ground bullshit is about fear. Fear to be found out as someone who is afraid. Fear to come out of the closet. Fear to be revealed as someone who has no purpose other than to prop things up around them. If someone’s going to take your shit should you kill him? What are you protecting? Your stuff? Your perilous identity based solely on consumption? Seems to lack proportionality. Sounds diseased. The irony is that the system you enable is much more likely to steal from you. Bank fees suck! Fucking interest rates. The repo man. You see what I mean. Who’s more other: the kid in the wrong neighborhood or the guy who evicts you because you can’t afford your mortgage?

Oh, just to wrap things up, you’re going to die someday, and if you live in America, it will almost assuredly be because you had a heart attack. Not because someone killed you.